By removing the exemption, persons engaged in otherwise-prohibited activities will need to obtain a permit or other authorization, giving the Service greater ability to make enforcement cases involving tigers

We are proposing this change to the regulations to ensure that we maintain strict control of captive tigers in the United States. We do not believe that breeding inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers provides a conservation benefit for the long-term survival of the species. Inter-subspecific tiger crosses and animals of unknown subspecies cannot be used for maintaining genetic viability and distinctness of specific tiger subspecies. Generic tigers are of unknown genetic origin and are typically not maintained in a manner to ensure that inbreeding or other inappropriate matings of animals do not occur. By exempting inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the CBW registration process in 1998, we may have inadvertently suggested that the breeding of these tigers qualifies as conservation. By removing the exemption, we can reinforce the value of conservation breeding of individual tiger subspecies and discourage the breeding of tigers of unknown or mixed lineage.

S. population of tigers, we recognize that the use of tiger parts and products, including in traditional medicine, poses a significant threat to wild tiger populations. The United States has worked vigorously with other CITES countries to encourage not only the adoption of measures to protect wild tiger populations from poaching and illegal trade, but also the implementation of measures to ensure that breeding of tigers in captivity supports conservation goals and that tigers are not bred for trade in parts and products. Despite a lack of evidence that parts from captive-bred tigers in the United States are entering international trade, we are taking this action out of an abundance of caution given the precarious status of tigers in the wild.

The CBW exemption also has created enforcement difficulties. Specifically, law enforcement cases have hinged on whether activities the Service has identified as illegal were actually exempted under the current regulations.

It should be www.loansolution.com/payday-loans-nm/ noted, however, that removing the exemption for inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers will not result in control of ownership, intrastate commerce, or noncommercial movement of these tigers across State lines. These activities are not prohibited by the Act, and we have no authority to prohibit them.

Finally, we are also proposing to reorganize paragraph (g)(6) to make the section clearer and more user-friendly. The proposed text reorganizes the list of species that are exempted from the registration process by grouping like species together. This reorganization consists primarily of redesignating subparagraphs. With the exception of removing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, the text is the same as currently appears in 50 CFR (g)(6).

Regulatory Planning and Review–Executive Order 12866: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E. OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria.

(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government.

(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

O. 12866)

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.